Create Project Task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), which aligns with the description stating it creates records. The description adds valuable context about the POST method, endpoint path, and the success response (created object), going beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of 5 sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and API details. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers creation behavior, required parameters, a hint for one parameter, and the API endpoint. Minor gaps include no mention of other optional parameters (due_date, assigned_to_user_id) beyond the hint, but these are covered by the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining how parameters are used (URL path vs request body) and provides a practical hint for 'assigned_to_user_id' (referencing the 'company users' endpoint), increasing clarity beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new Bid Board record (project task) and specifies the HTTP 201 response. It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (Bid Board records), distinguishing it from other task-related tools like 'update_project_task_company_v2_0'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists required parameters and the API endpoint, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., the non-v2.0 version or other creation tools), nor does it mention when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.